User talk:Squidfryerchef

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fire Star 火星 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Flirting article and "kino"

Hi Squidfryerchef. Thanks for dropping me a note. If we want to get more detail on the type of touch that's meant, looking for sources from human behavior experts that describes the type of touching would be much more useful than using the jargon of a poorly known sub-culture. I think this could be a productive road to go down, though I don't know of any research off the top of my head.

My problem with the kino reference was that it was kind of irrelevant. As a word it has many different connotations. Typing kino into a search engine doesn't get you much information on flirting. And the seduction communities use of the term kino may not cover all the ways in which touch is used in flirting. Our manual of style guides us to not use jargon in general. Sometimes that guidance isn't appropriate. But using kino isn't like using most jargon in a computing article because generally their aren't many competing terms within the area of computer expertise. When a piece of jargon is not fairly universal it would generally be a particularly poor decision to choose to use it. So one group has a particular word for something - by itself that's not really encyclopedic. Within the area of human behavior and flirting there are hundreds of different sub-cultures, many of which have their own words for different things in the article. Why are we highlighting that particular one? As an encyclopedia we report on the significant opinions of experts in the field. If we want to cover the idea of words being coined by different groups to cover aspects of flirting, we need first to ascertain that experts who study flirting have noted this phenomenon, and then quote them. If, say, a psychologist who publishes papers on human relationships has looked into this and written a book, newspaper article or paper that covers it - that would be a great source. Or possibly a language specialist who happens to have looked at this particular area of human language. Otherwise we're just putting together our own assortment of facts and opinions on what's notable about the subject. And that becomes original research (not that the rest of the article is so great at the moment!). --Siobhan Hansa 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"As far as original research, I don't see any problem with people sourcing ( with references ) terms from various subcultures in the article and comparing them, as long they're not trying to advance a particular thesis." As I mentioned above our articles are supposed to represent the significant opinions of experts in the field. If experts on human behavior have written about the seduction community's use of the term, I think that could be a good addition. But otherwise, referencing a sub-culture's terminology (and even their definition) when they are not considered significant by experts is promoting a particular organization, and consequently their POV, in an unencyclopedic fashion. We're not a portal to anything and everything to do with the subject, we're an encyclopedia, and we're supposed to be developing authoritative articles, not ones that mention cool things we've read. Putting together things we've read in a way that does not represent expert opinion is original research - though this is hardly up there with writing an article about a quack physics theory!
On the footnote/reference thing, looking back through the history I see the editor before me turned the mention from a footnote into a reference - that's probably what drew my attention to it. --Siobhan Hansa 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question at WP:HD regarding wikitables

Greetings, Squidfryerchef. I've gone ahead and changed the table at Citizens' band radio slightly; I hope this is what you had in mind. It should now be a little easier to add or remove stuff as well: the rows and columns in the wikicode (if you use your imagination) coincide with those of the table and its contents. Cheers! —XhantarTalk 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ( if this is the right page to be giving my thanks on ). This is closer to what I was hoping for, and it's something the other editors of that page could agree on. Squidfryerchef 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jelly beans

You'll need to find a source that says [some] jelly beans are actually flavored with anise oil. Please read WP:NOR. Dreadstar † 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please quit adding Original Research to the Jelly Bean article, it violates policy. Dreadstar † 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not OR, it's a good link fron a reliable source. I'm trying to imporve a crufty article, please stop being disruptive. Squidfryerchef 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It absolutely is original research. If you believe I'm being disruptive, then take it to WP:ANI, but quit edit warring to add your OR to the article. You are inferring that Licorice jellybeans are flacored with anise, but you have no source for that. It's clearly OR. Ask on the WP:NOR talk page, if you like, or get a WP:3O. Dreadstar † 22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Umm, no, it isn't. Not unless OR stands for "obviously right". Please see the comments on your talk page. I can discuss it further. Squidfryerchef 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIV and WP:AGF please. Take it up the chain. Dreadstar † 22:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What gives? Squidfryerchef 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I responded and archived, what of it? Dreadstar † 22:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well how about we finish discussing this hair-splitting regarding the OR policy? Squidfryerchef 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Opened discussion on WP:NOR talk page. Squidfryerchef 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I don't know how I can make it any clearer, but I'm willing to try.
Here's what I see:
Policy: WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which states:
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."
Source A: Liquorice candies are flavored with Anise. (Source does not mention Jelly Beans)
Source B: Black Jelly Beans are liquorice flavored. (Source does not mention Anise)
Synthesis: Black Jelly Beans are flavored with Anise. (Original research/analysis/synthesis)
This is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the fact that because "liquorice flavored candies" are flavored with anise, then 'liquorice flavored Jelly Beans" (which are candies) are flavored with anise.
The excuse that it's "just a link in the article, which doesn't draw a conclusion" is flawed and incorrect, because its mere presence in the article draws a conclusion, even if not explicitly stated. Been there, done that.
I dunno...I actually feel pretty dumb about this argument, but can't you find a single reliable source that actually says that some Jelly Beans are flavored with Anise? It seems simple - but I looked and it isn't at all simple to find a source that says so. I wonder why? Anyway, here are two moderately acceptable sources: [1] [2]. Those can be used, but not the one that's unrelated to the subject of the article...which is Jelly Beans, not "candies". Dreadstar † 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well that's actually my point. I don't think "source being related to the subject of the article" is to be taken so literally. I think the source only needs to be related to the sentence is being footnoted. The other issue is that a jellybean is only a particular shape of hard candy, and wouldnt be flavored any differently than any other hard candy. If it were a certain _brand_ of jellybean than I would feel very differently and insist on a statement that that brand has a particular flavoring. Squidfryerchef 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
We'll see what the others have to say. Jelly beans. Who'd of thunk. You know, doing the research really makes me wonder if Jelly Beans are flavored with anise at all...some of the sales sites say it, but why are there no relaible sources for such a thing? Mebbe it's not even true anymore..and they're all synthetically flavored.....oooOOOoooo...;) Dreadstar † 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well my take is that jellybeans are just a differently-shaped sweet, and would use the same flavorings as lollipops, etc, even sodas. If someone did the same thing about a brand-name confection, or even something like a liqueur that might not be a brand name, but had a generally accepted way of making it, then I'd be making the same edits and OR claims. Anyway it's more complicated than that, you'll probably find "licorice" candies made from anise, star anise, artificial flavorings, and true licorice. But the point is that in the U.S. "licorice" is so often used to refer to things flavored with anise that there is a lot of confusion, and the article ought to say something about that. P.S. that Canada.com article might not be usable for the "anise" issue but it does resolve a lot of the unsourced data in the article. Squidfryerchef 00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Episode articles of cancelled series?

In fact it doesn't matter (IMO). It's more "these episodes are not notable, and the series isn't even running anymore so it is unlikely they will ever be". Per all the AfDs I have seen and WP:EPISODE, these plot summaries and trivia have not much chance of survival in an AfD. Personally I tagged all these after crossing 3 of them in PROD patrol, and I thought the case was clear for deleting the others in this series sharing the same problems. Arguably, when I started tagging, I didn't expect to see that many articles without anything notable. -- lucasbfr talk 10:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Squidfryerchef 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Point noted :) As I said it doesn't really matter IMO, the articles don't assert anything is notable in these episodes. We aren't imdb :). But thanks for your message -- lucasbfr talk 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone else removed the prods. I have therefore brought the pages to AfD where their deletion can be discussed. Since you were interested I'm letting you know. Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.


[edit] Eurodance

hi, I saw you are contributing with that article, so could you please keep an eye about some people adding L. America as a region of large popularity. I'll already explain proving data that the only American countries with a large popularity in the young population of this music are indeed Argentina and Canada.

For the sake of the article's quality, and its reliability try to reverse the info, when one dance fan (just because of his/her taste) changuing it again.

Ally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.236.40 (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That section's been a problem for a while, with IP editors who keep switching between Argentina and South America, and keep swapping Canada and Japan between the high and middle popularity categories. Squidfryerchef 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RDS Radio

Hi there,

in relation to your question about RDS radios, the simple answer is 'yes'. The Radio Data System is designed with a subcarrier system which identifies information about radio stations it can currently receive. This is how traffic announcements work, as the radio notes the signal given out. There is also a special broadcast code which will interrupt any RDS radio, provided it is given out in the normal FM range (86-108).

Owain.davies 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the data subcarrier is part of the FM broadcast I'm listening to, just like the different channels of stereo. So if I'm listening to station X, there might be a message about what song is playing, etc. But what happens when an ambulance is coming up behind me who has an RDS transmitter? I'm assuming they're transmitting with very low power on some unused FM frequency. But I don't understand if I'm listening to station X, why it would all of the sudden pick up the ambulance on frequency Y? Unless the RDS radios include a second tuner that constantly scans the dial for emergency anouncements.
Squidfryerchef 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It works exactly the same as traffic announcements - your RDS radio constantly scans for these, whether you have it turned on or not, and if you have the TP feature enabled, traffic announcements will interrupt whatever you're listening too. These data carriers will be picked up by your radio as soon as they are in range. The system was originally designed for the emergency broadcast (and is still used for that in many countries) - In the event of national emergency, the appropriate authority broadcasts their messages and a channel 31 carrier signal, and all RDS radios will switch to it, so nobody misses out. Quite clever really. Owain.davies 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your change to Amateur Radio

Very well, since I don't want to get into a revert war over a picture caption, we'll leave things as is. Your's is still a fairly accurate description of the image shown. One thing that I will point out from the old description, is that it mentioned "solid-state". Don't you think that is worth keeping, since a lot of amateurs still work on and use vaccuum tube radios? Edit Centric (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's something to think about. I know that even today lots of linear amps are made with tubes, but I think the radio having digital-everything more than implies solid-state. Of course, that logic wouldn't hold true for guitar equipment, where it's not unusual to find digital effects _and_ tubes in the same preamp. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti lock brake indicator

As it suggests, an ABS indicator is a light (green flashing in the EU) which activates when the anti lock brakes activate, to provide extra warning to other motorists that the braking is particularly sharp. As for the list, I don't see whats wrong with specifics, and as for the wording, it is correct, as all other uses are illegal. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military of the DRC

Did you not see the citation tags when I refer to each numbered naval region, after I say, 'the 1st is at Kalemie' or whatever, there's a cite? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I thought there were uncited sources in addition to what was already footnoted. I reworded it so the sourcing is a bit more obvious. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your answer at WP:RSN

...on free newsweeklies. I'll pass it on at Talk:Robot. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)